Recent Comments

Prev  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  Next

Comments 110251 to 110300:

110251. Same Ordinary Fool at 05:12 AM on 13 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        ...Which leads to...We should be grateful that two climate skeptics are in charge of a set of global temperature measurements. Other skeptics and deniers are compelled to accept that global temperatures are increasing, because they're saying it.
110252. muoncounter at 05:00 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        #81: "The rest of the time and space, the cloud effect from GCR might not have much affect." But the GCR->clouds => cooling is the core the Svensmark argument. Are you saying that might not have much effect? "and other magnetic effects other than GCR. Although complex it is not useful to say since there is no linear trend in the past we have to ignore them or consider them to be random fluctuations. " What does that mean? Magnetic effects (ie, solar and interplanetary field strength are fundamental parts of the GCR model. What are the other magnetic effects, linear or otherwise, on climate?
110253. wingding at 03:55 AM on 13 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        General thoughts not aimed at this article or anyone in particular: Roy Spencer and John Christy are real skeptics and real scientists - a far cry from greenhouse-disbelieving psuedo-skeptic blog types. They argue that climate sensitivity is low. That's perfectly valid if they can argue the case scientifically. Spencer published a paper recently on the matter so his ideas cannot be obviously wrong and he must be contributing to the field. Yes there was a UAH satellite correction, but records sometimes encounter large errors. That's science. You shouldn't read conspiracy into it. As such their honesty is unquestionable. I disagree with them on climate sensitivity, I think the charney sensitivity range is more likely because that is what model and paleoclimate studies of sensitivity invariably show. But it's perfectly fine for scientists to challenge this with new ideas. If they can convince countless scientists that their idea is right then I would inevitably change my mind too. Spencer and Christy fit this role. All I am saying is that bashing Spencer and Christy is baseless and resembles the typical scientist-bashing behavior seen at WUWT imo.
110254. Albatross at 03:50 AM on 13 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Pielke says, "his metric (the OHC) is accepted by most climate scientists (including Jim Hansen) as a robust measure of global warming." No-one here is necessarily disagreeing with that Roger, you are arguing strawmen again-- the real problems are measuring OHC it properly and over a sufficiently long period and depth, not to mention merging the XBT and Argo data. Also, it should not be viewed in isolation or panacea of data observations at this time, especially given the caveats and know issues with the Argo data. I also recommend reading DrTom's post @150. Dr. Pielke, maybe you could influence/lobby some policy makers to get DSCOVR launched?
110255. Albatross at 03:41 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Dana1981, More contradictions can be found here (and in some of the in-line links): http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/03/contradictions.html
110256. Albatross at 03:38 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Dana1981, I have read your post again carefully, and the examples from WUWT that you cite are under the label of 'flip-flopping', not contradiction. I concur with you labeling them as that. DOn;t be intimidated by the uncritical WUWT followers-- you have a solid case, that is very easily supported by even a cursory perusal of WUWT. What they also do not point out at WUWT is that many of these factors are oscillations (PDO, ENSO, AMO, solar cycle etc.) and while some of them can certainly modulate global temperatures on a short to intermediate term, they are now essentially noise superimposed on a long-term warming trend arising from enhanced GHG forcing. Those internal climate modes cannot alone explain the marked warming that the globe has seen, nor can they explain the planetary energy imbalance. The hypothesis at WUWT and by most skeptics is to throw out a myriad of (often weak) hypotheses and see what sticks. While all of WUWT's arguments may not be contradictory, there are certainly many logical fallacies, contradictions and flip flopping going on. I find it laughable that Mosher claims Anthony believes that some kind of hitherto undiscovered "Svensmark effect" exists that will counter the increasing radiative forcing of higher GHGs. What is remarkable about that statement is that if the stated effect is/was indeed so important/critical, why is it not detectable or not manifested itself in the data? Sounds more like wishful thinking than science to me. Anthony certainly has a lot of unscientific posts in the "you name it category" I would like to know what the connections are, if any, between WUWT and FoS. Maybe Steven Mosher can help in that regard?
110257. archiesteel at 03:25 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Eric: "The also have and will easily override CO2 warming and may make it moot at some point in the future." That is opinion (one that is biased against AGW theory) and not fact. You failed to address the point that there has been no increase in GCR or neutron count. Ergo, this cannot be the cause for the current increase in temperature. Most of your argument is simply an attempt at obfuscating the issue. It is not too different from Baz's "we simply don't know," i.e. an argument against the possibility of knowing due to the complexity of the system. This misses the point, however, that we *do* know an increasing amount of energy is being redirected downwards by AGG in the atmosphere, as shown by satellite and ground-based observations. Learning more and making more precise analysis is a good thing, and in that sense you are contributing to the debate. However, to claim that AGW isn't happening because we don't know the workings of all the minute details is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. It's like ingesting a toxin and claiming that you may not die because we don't understand all the inner workings of the body's immune response...
110258. andthorne at 03:12 AM on 13 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        The reason the troposphere is not warmoing as quickley as the rest of the atmosphere is because it contains the methane gas layer within it. gas distribute in opur atmosphere according to weight. methane lies right next to water vapor and is at the required prssure to get its leg on with oits ability to take up heat into its moleclues in order to form its hydrate in the sky. this hydrate formation is what causes lightening they discovered in 2007. During hydrate formation of ice crystals or hail if the moisture in the clouds(water vapor) is great enough, it grabs all the positive ions and this creats electricity. All our DOE money should be going to devlop this source of power . . .water and methane and pressure and in te interim tidal power to replace fossil fuel until it can be im[plmented. That's the plan and the only plab that can save us.
110259. Philippe Chantreau at 02:18 AM on 13 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        No Robert, please don't. That's the kind of garbage spewing all over from sites like WUWT or CA, we don't need that here. Everybody should refrain from implying or suggesting anyting. I've been guilty of it in the past myself and I'm not proud of it, it should not be welcome on this site. This posts does a decent job of presenting some facts, let's leave it at that. Each can have his/her own opinion as to what the deeper significance is, keep it to yourself until you have something really solid to substantiate. What's more interesting, IMO, is that it provides an instance of models vs data in which the models were right. That is one characteristic of models based on physics. When data don't agree, it is ground for looking more closely at both, but well established physical models must not be considered worthless only because on set of data comes along that happens to disagree with model expectations.
110260. robert way at 02:03 AM on 13 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        I'm not going to make any accusations pertaining to the reasoning behind the error not being discovered... but I have to say that I bet mears et al. off the record had some very interesting things to say...
110261. actually thoughtful at 01:59 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Baz @77 - if you are used to posting/reading at WUWT you might think "We just DON'T know" is a valid statement. However, this site is dedicated to an honest scientific debate, and very knowledgeable people post and comment here regularly. And of course the key - all posts here refer back to the peer-reviewed science that is the gold standard for scientific knowledge. Statements like "We just DON'T know" may be valid for you and your pet mouse. But not for the poster/comment writers on this site. So please, ask a question or two about what YOU don't know and follow through on the reading you are directed to. You too can KNOW what is happening to our physical world, and why (and know where there is some uncertainty too - no where near as much as the ideological propaganda coming out of sites like WUWT would have you believe, but some around the edges - thus the need for more research).
110262. John Hartz at 01:49 AM on 13 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Who are the world's leading experts on ocean dynamics? Have any of them reviewed Dr. Pielke's assumptions about the distribution of heat within the total ocean system?
110263. Lars Rosenberg at 01:45 AM on 13 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        Their first report, with the rubric ”Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites”, was published in Science in March 1990, and showed a rather high level of self-confidence. Here are some interesting quotes: ”Our data suggest that high-precision atmospheric temperature monitoring is possible from satelite microwave radiometers. Because of their demonstrated stability and the global coverage they provide, these radiometers should be made the standard for the monitoring of global atmospheric temperature anomalies since 1979.” ”Various computerized climate models, which predict future changes through time-dependent equations representing physical processes, can now be evaluated with accurate global temperature measurements.” ”These improvements should facilitate more informed policy decisions concerning the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas production.”
110264. davidwwalters at 01:31 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Marcus@58 Try here as well: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/deutsche-climate-threat/
110265. Roger A Pielke Sr at 01:21 AM on 13 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        actually thoughtfull - The new information this Fall, so I have been told, is an updated best estimate of ocean heat content changes by specialists working in this research area, presented as close to the present as possible. This metric (the OHC) is accepted by most climate scientists (including Jim Hansen) as a robust measure of global warming.
110266. JonMChe at 01:17 AM on 13 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        A man walks 10 miles on day 1. He walks 20 miles on day 2 and stays in place on day 3. His average movement was 10 miles per day, but it is not WRONG to say he isn't moving on day 3. Climate is a complex chaotic system which is very difficult to measure. Even if there is a long term average warming due to CO2 emissions it is perfectly reasonable that timelags and the nonlinear natures of the feedbacks and forcings can cause short term cooling or cessation. Global warming as measured by atmospheric temperature is a relatively small signal in a complex noisy and chaotic system. Atmospheric measurements of temperature are indirect measurements of global warming and require complex modelling and tremendous effort to determine. We can only see the global warming signature as an average over a long time period. Dr. Pielke is simply pointing out that warming is a measure of net heat into the system and that an accurate measure of heat can directly measure global warming on a much shorter time scale. You can argue as to whether the ocean data is sufficient or accurate enough (just as the skeptics due about the atmospheric data) to draw conclusions which are robust without casting aspersions on Dr.Pielke's integrity. Dr. Pielke's statement that according to the data he was analysing, a 4 year period of time shows NO warming of the globe is a scientific statement based on a reasonable assessment of the scientific data being analysed. I believe that a scientific paper is generally written with the assumption that the reader has knowledge of basic concepts and terminology. Dr. Pielke is really being e castigated for saying that global warming stopped for 4 years when he should have said (for the sake of those with limited english profficiency) that the globe did not warm during those 4 years.
110267. John Hartz at 01:10 AM on 13 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        181. Ken Lambert: For everyone’s convenience, I am repeating my post of Badgersouth 153. You state, "Dr Trenberth reckons on a yearly imbalance of 145E20 Joules. He puts 2E20 Joules into land heat up, 1E20Joules into Arctic sea ice melt, and 2-3E20 Joules into Total land ice melt." Have Dr. Trenberth's "reckonings" been peer reviewed? In the contest of your statement, does "land" include both the lithosphere and the bioshpere? Does "land" also include surface freshwater? My first question was specific to the specific data “reckoned” by Dr. Trenberth. Let me rephrase the question to remove any ambiguities. What is the source document for Dr. Trenberth’s “reckonings? Has this document been peer reviewed?
110268. Eric (skeptic) at 01:01 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Marcus (#66), on your first point, no linear trend in neutron counts, the effect of neutron counts on clouds is highly nonlinear, see my first link in #63. You also claim "delta T is linear" while neutron counts are cyclical. Delta T is not linear thanks to many natural internal and external factors, but the lack of cycles in delta T is a valid point. More on that later. On your second point, the highly nonlinear relationship between clouds and neutron count along with other nonlinear relationships between clouds and other natural factors particularly ocean current cycles will eliminate the possibility of a linear change in clouds. Your third point, the "net effect" of clouds is zero, is a red herring. In my second link in #63, the effect of clouds varies mainly according to what's underneath them. What you didn't address is the lowering of water vapor by GCR-induced clouds. Global average water vapor depends mainly on sea surface temperature and the annual cycle. Local water vapor is diurnal and there are many local factors. Here's one paper on water vapor: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281996%29009%3C0427%3AIVOUTW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 In it the 1983, 1987 and 1992 El Nino peaks show up clearly. The 1987 peak is suppressed even though the El Nino was strong than in 1992. A plausible reason for that is the uptake of excess water vapor by GCR nuclei in 1987. There could be other reasons for the difference as well. The sea surface temperature dominates and the neutron count effect, being nonlinear, will only show up at some latitudes under some conditions. The rest of the time and space, the cloud effect from GCR might not have much affect. Other effects come from UV (various including ozone) and other magnetic effects other than GCR. Although complex it is not useful to say since there is no linear trend in the past we have to ignore them or consider them to be random fluctuations. The reason is that since they influence weather nonlinearly they influence sensitivity to CO2 and will do so differently as CO2 warming increases. The also have and will easily override CO2 warming and may make it moot at some point in the future.
110269. Daniel Bailey at 00:34 AM on 13 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Re: Baz (76)

        "My 'problem' is that we don't know if the positive feedbacks will overcome the negative ones. We DON'T know!" Where to begin... IF positive feedbacks were overcoming negative ones, then we would expect to see indicators of a warming world, right? And we would then expect to see a warming signal in the data, right? We would also like to see a physical response by millennial repositories of ice located around the world, right? Like these, maybe: Glacier visual evidence 1 Glacier visual evidence 2 Glacier visual evidence 3 This becomes tedious. Much further evidence regarding yearly multi-gigatonnal mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet, The West Antarctica Ice Sheet and even the East Antarctica Ice Sheet exists elsewhere on this site alone. Multiple examples exist that demonstrate that the warming forcings have been, and continue to this day, exceeding the negatives by quite a bit. There is no "If" or "We DON'T know!" So to pretend that "We DON'T know!" becomes a specious argument refuted by simply opening one's eyes and looking at the totality of the available evidence. I have a higher opinion of you than that, based on reading some of your comments. Perhaps I missed some emoticon thingy (Poe's Law). If so, deepest apologies. The Yooper

110270. Riccardo at 00:22 AM on 13 September 2010
        How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
        argh, "first sentence should read "this calculations only takes into account ..."
110271. Riccardo at 00:21 AM on 13 September 2010
        How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
        Ken Lambert #47 this calculations only takes not account the impact on incoming short wavelengths. As far as energy balance is concerned, the net effects is what matters.
110272. macwithoutfries at 23:47 PM on 12 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        John Christy and Roy Spencer have been quite vocal on the web with theories and never-proven affirmations which really cast a big shadow of doubt on their scientific intentions - their mistake described above has fueled the denier movement for like over 10 years and they are now promoting (on the web) equally strange theories, so I would also recommend this post - Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?
110273. Ken Lambert at 23:14 PM on 12 September 2010
        How we know the sun isn't causing global warming
        andreas #42, ClimateWatcher #44 andreas - not a silly question at all. The Earth's warming imbalance from a combination of AG CO2GHG warming and cloud and direct albedo cooling is supposed to be +0.9W/sq.m. Your calculation of a 1% change in albedo (say 30 to 31%) makes a difference of 1366/4 x (0.70 -0.69) = 3.4W/sq.m. - much greater than the purported CO2GHG forcing of 1.66W/sq.m (IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4). What this does to GCM's which are cycled forward to predict in 2050 or 2100 is a very good question.
110274. kdkd at 23:03 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Ken #182 Your argument above is sound but it can not yet contribute to the conclusions we can draw about anthropogenic global warming, even with the better sampling post 2004. The best we can say is that there are still large uncertainties relating to both measurement and understanding. However this has no effect on the other indicators that anthropogenic global warming is a serious and pressing problem.
110275. Ken Lambert at 22:41 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        kdkd #174 Pursue this elsewhere kdkd. You are thinking wishfully by posing that there is any 'fessing up' on my part. I have been critical of the potential inaccuracy of Argo for OHC measurement in many posts on this blog and elsewhere, and suggested an ideal system of tethered buoys. The issue is how close Argo comes to this 'ideal' measurement. The point is 3500 Argo buoys must give a more accurate picture that XBT and other ad hoc measurements prior to 2004. The problem was the splicing of XBT records to Argo in the transition coinciding with impossible leaps (2.1W/sq.m) in global upper 700m OHC when the purported figure is 0.9W/sq.m leads the conclusion in KL #180 above.
110276. Ken Lambert at 22:28 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Badgersouth #153 and others: Asking whether Dr Trenberth's papers are 'peer reviewed' shows that you need to do some more reading before venturing onto this blog. Start with this: "Robust warming of the upper ocean" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=153&&n=357 Have a look at Berenyi Peter (BP for short) BP#6, #16, #30, #45 #72, and a couple of mine KL #24, #43, #60.
110277. Ken Lambert at 22:23 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Dr Pielke, before you sign off please have a look at another thread from this blog, namely: "Robust warming of the upper ocean" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=153&&n=357 Have a look at Berenyi Peter (BP for short) BP#6, #16, #30, #45 #72, and a couple of mine KL #24, #43, #60. Here's the conclusion: "BP has got it pretty right in his application of the first law, and the conclusion that the large OHC increases prior to 2004 are offset errors in the XBT-Argo transition is much more 'Robust' I would suggest."
110278. dorlomin at 20:45 PM on 12 September 2010
        A history of satellite measurements of global warming
        Spencer and Christy get a lot of flak from many quarters but the UAH data set and satellite data sets generally are proving a really usefull tool for analysing the climate. While I disagree with their conculsions they have produced some really interesting science.
110279. JMurphy at 20:36 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        barry wrote : "...Watts has been promising for a couple of years now to submit a paper that re-examines the temperature record based on the surfascestations project. Hitherto, his publications (not peer-reviewed) have pointed out the problems but not crunched the numbers. Apparently, the paper is soon to be submitted." Funnily enough, Dr Pielke Sr claims that too : Our paper on siting quality issues with respect to multi-decadal surface temperature trends is nearly complete. I wonder what the problem could be ?
110280. JMurphy at 20:18 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        There's a good website that shows up the contradictions and hypocrisy of Watts and his followers, here : Wott's Up With That ?
110281. Paul D at 19:39 PM on 12 September 2010
        Industrial CO2: Relentless warming taskmaster
        A general comment about all the 'Basic' versions... I think they fail to take into account learning styles of individuals that would be interested. Generally the learning styles are visual, audio and kinesthetic. It may be difficult to cover kinesthetic learning styles, but visual and audio should be easier. I think Alden Griffiths presentations show how it should be done, with graphics and audio commentary. http://www.fool-me-once.com/ Text is going to reach a limited audience, although it is obviously important. Text partly covers the visual, but has limitations. Hence I wonder if we could have more diagrams and audio?
110282. Baz at 19:32 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Jeff T, that's a little unfair. WUWT clearly is interested in the scientific arguments. I read it often too. It's far more polite than most, and clearly the contributors WANT to get at the science - they simply don't believe that warming will result (I am sceptical myself, because we don't KNOW it will).
110283. Baz at 19:26 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Just a quick reply to Dana at 46: Oh I fully appreciate the physics behind CO2 warming. In fact, talk to many sceptics and they'll be the same (that's why I am 'disappointed' in the panel on the left). My 'problem' is that we don't know if the positive feedbacks will overcome the negative ones. We DON'T know!
110284. Baz at 19:21 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Hello all. First of all let me apologise. I don't get as much time to surf the net as I would like, so I confess I haven't read all the replies yet (but I will do later). However, let me respond to at least one I did read so far. When I said "who hold the faith" I didn't mean it in a sarcastic way. I merely meant that you have the belief that a positive feedback will occur - and warming will be exceptional. Sorry if it was taken in a way I didn't intend. I should have phrased it better. I'll read all the replies later and come back. Stay nice!
110285. beam me up scotty at 17:37 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        It seems to me that these people use scraps of 'science' in copious amounts to obscure why they are "skeptics". They're really afraid of losing their way of life.
110286. Jeff T at 17:25 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        I read WUWT frequently, to see what anti-AGW folks are saying. The vast majority of posts ARE anti-AGW and nearly all comments are. To hide behind, "I'm just quoting someone else," is a bit underhanded. WUWT's true slant was revealed on July 14th of this year when it posted Monckton's request that readers contact John Abraham's employer "to instigate a disciplinary inquiry." This invitation to harassment puts the lie to the claim that WUWT is really interested scientific arguments about AGW.
110287. Albatross at 16:46 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Steven Mosher @67, "Most people do not understand how content gets staged for WUWT, how it gets approved and what the editorial criteria are." Well, going by Steven Goddard's posts the editorial criteria are not at all high at WUWT. Are you permitted to share what the "editorial criteria" are? I like you use of the word "staged"...very revealing ;) There are contradictions at WUWT Steven, and you are probably going to regret standing by Anthony on that, because anyone here can go to the website and identify the myriad of contradictions there. You gave one example. Here is another. Anthony is only too happy to highlight regional cold snaps, but when it comes to warming, the surface data are allegedly corrupted and can allegedly not be trusted. So in Anthony's world the station data are good enough for him to highlight cold snaps (gotta keep people thinking that the planet is not warming), but not not good for anything else. And not to mention that the long-term trends in global temperatures (not regional) derived from the RSS MSU and Radiosonde (RATPAC)data are in very good agreement with the various SAT datasets. You also say that he accepts the theory of the radiative forcing of GHGs, then why does he have posts on his site which are effectively challenging that theory (e.g., Goddard's posts on Venus)? In a warming planet it is expected that the Arctic sea ice (and land ice) will reduce in extent. That is in fact what we are observing, but Anthony goes to great lengths to assure/convince readers that the Arctic sea ice is doing just fine. That is a contradiction in logic. Anthony claims to have a "science" blog. Well having posts by the likes of Monckton, Goddard, Smith and D'Aleo and others is contrary to what one would expect on a science blog. So yet another contradiction. We are going to double CO2, so going by what you said concerning his understanding of the climate science, Anthony should then accept that we can expect at least 1 C of warming associated with doubling CO2, and consequently the long-term trends in global SATs should be positive as the radiative forcing from elevated GHGs continues to slowly increase. Yet, he spends an awful lot of time and effort on invoking a myriad of reasons as to why that should not happen and to show why the planet is not warming [including cherry-picking short-term windows to avoid obtaining statistically significant warming (thanks to Lindzen)]. That is a huge contradiction right there. I challenge people reading this to go to WUWT and highlight for you Steve ALL the contradictions (and logical fallacies) that have been made in recent years at WUWT. It will require lot of work and but I hope that people are up to the task. While they are at it they can also document the misinformation and distortion of the scientific literature and misinformation made by guest posters. As for the science being settled, well that is a whole different story. What does that mean, and to what aspects of climate science does it apply? Some things are settled, others are close and others are not (e.g., clouds and aerosols). The radiative forcing of GHGs and the greenhouse effect are settled, although many of Anthony's readers have a hard time even accepting the theory of the greenhouse effect. The fact that humans are increasing GHGs is settled (isotopes and all that). Milankovitch cycles...settled, it is not referred to as a theory for nothing. IMHO, the only really important issue left up for debate is climate sensitivity (transient and long term, very important to distinguish between the two), and even there a huge number of independent studies converge over a fairly narrow range. Also, you here have acknowledged that Anthony "plays up" other factors/drivers-- what you did not say is that their role in modulating global temperatures are well understood and have been quantified and which have been shown to be either be of only short-term importance and/or have a minimal impact globally. Anyhow, I'm sure that you feel obliged to defend Anthony and Charles, but maybe it is time for the sake of your own reputation, to distance yourself from the folks at WUWT.
110288. RSVP at 16:46 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        dana1981 #31 "Or we can realize that at some point, when there is overwhelming scientific evidence against a certain concept, it's time to acknowledge that it's incorrect and move on." If you are so ready to "move on", why are you writing about what other people think, instead of making sound recommendations based on "overwhelming scientific evidence"? I am still waiting to see an article at this website that maps positive predictions based on the alternative formulas "humanity" is expected to adopt. Is'nt the science good enough?
110289. barry1487 at 16:13 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Mosh, I've nothing to add to what you said that would be more than quibbles. So let me ask you as an insider: why is it that there are hardly any articles posted there that introduce novel technologies, hypotheses or any cutting edge science, that do not carry the implicit message that AGW is wrong/exaggerated/too difficult to explain? If WUWT were even halfway a neutral platform for weather/climate science that was novel, I'd have no argument with you. But the overall tone, the vast majority of posts, the sniping at the mainstream (by Anthony and others who post) - there's just no argument about the thrust of the polemic there, and what purpose the web site serves. Watts' one-sided preoccupation with 'anonymous cowards' - which doesn't apply when 'JeffID' posts, or when anyone comments in line with the polemic - is but one example. Occasional reasonable posts don't even the balance. The damage is done. Even reasonable postings there by 'skeptics' (like Spencer on the greenhouse effect) get mobbed. Is it that stuff that isn't anti-AGW hardly ever gets submitted there? Has Anthony invited the likes of Gavin Schmidt etc? I might brush up my rhetoric and post on the nature of the debate. Minus characterizations of Anthony's contribution, do you think he'd allow me to post an article a bit like the one here? Would he let me do that under a pseudonym, like JeffID? An off-topic question for you, as you were there - why did the analysis of good stations via the surfacestations project stop happening at climateaudit? I thought that was an excellent demonstration of transparency and collegial investigation between 'skeptics' and and others (like John V). I've long wondered about that. Cheers, barry.
110290. actually thoughtful at 15:53 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Steve I think you are missing my point on Watts. He is the Rush Limbaugh of climate change. Rush will tell you all day long he loves America (science for Watts). But you watch his actions, listens to what he says and you realize: he hates America (science). His actions are antithetical to the success of science (America). The net effect - the gestalt if Rush is he hates America. He wants to see it fail, he wants to see it burn -this drives "ratings" (traffic for Watts). As many, many people have pointed out - Watts has done no science. He cherry picks. Look at his articles on Arctic ice extent (in March), comparing the temperature for first 3 weeks of June (infinitely small data sets to show the trend he desires). Every time I chase a claim back to that site - I find massive cherry picks, broken logic or wishful thinking (sometimes a not-very-entertaining mixture of all three). If this is how you want to communicate in the internet age - go for it. But don't try to peddle it as science. I am not buying that, and no one familiar with the scientific method will buy it. If you want to say he is whoring for traffic - we can agree on that.
110291. Albatross at 15:31 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Re #178, Good point, and while you are at it perhaps also contact Dr. Palmer, and the folks at Hadley and PMEL.
110292. steven mosher at 14:56 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        "actually thoughtfull at 13:10 PM on 12 September, 2010 Steven Mosher @47 Nice try but no dice. It is Watts' site. He has a point of view. He has made it very clear. YOU could tell me his point of view." If you want to know Watts point of view i will hazard a guess at it from talking to him. Its a point of view that makes the articles he posted consistent rather than contradictory. 1. GHGs DO have a warming effect. he believes this. 2. The effect is much smaller than the IPCC holds. 3. the variations we see are the result of A. GHGs (small) B. "natural cycles" see PDO etc C. some unknown sun spot mechanism ( the svensmark effect perhaps) D. corrupt record E. you name it. So, of course he is going to post articles that downplay A (spenser) and play up B and C and D and E. But the writer of this blog made a charge about contradictions. There is no contradiction here. However, There is a 'contradiction' of sorts when Anthony BOTH questions the temperature data and THEN with basil argues that sunspots are correlated with it. cant have it both ways. So there is evidence in the record of that BUT this writer at this blog didnt take the time to ferret that out. I'm more interested in the strong arguments against particular positions than the weak ones. "He doesn't post these contradictory things and say "Well this contradicts what we looked at last month - more research needed."- He post them all as PROOF that AGW isn't happening, or doesn't matter or whatever. " Seriously he posts them as Proof? no he posts them as proof that the science is not settled. And he doesnt post them all. he doesnt even select them all. And when he posts walt meier whats the point of that? Let me give you a clue. Controversy drives traffic. having spent some time at the editorial desk at WUWT I can tell you how I picked stuff. I picked stuff that was contradictory if I could find it. Purely and simply to see how the commenters would fight it out. I picked articles that contradicted what someone had written before. so your critique is that anthony doesnt write: 'more research needed?" that's a tautology nearly. You would actually write so boringly? You'd make a better case by saying that Anthony sows doubt. Just saying. sharpen your skills. "Perhaps you have spent so much time at sites specializing in sophistry that has become your method of debating? " Actually, the sophists were great teachers. I admire their skill and scepticism. In general they did know how to make better arguments. That was the craft.So while I may eschew their relativism i do admire their ability to actually use the right evidence. As for your theory of infection, it doesnt hold up. You would need evidence of what I was like BEFORE visiting these horrible sites and then evidence afterwards to make such a case. do you even consider the kind of evidence you need to support an argument before making it? i think not. "You have a very small pedantic point "Anthony Watts, did not say each of those things, in his own words." But he posted and agreed with those points - so what is the difference in reality?" The difference is this. you actually dont have Watts arguing that the SUN and only the SUN is to blame. If you did, then you might have a case, if anthony then claims that PDO and ONLY PDO was to blame and then if he claimed that CFC were soley responsible.. but if you actually read the papers you can see that the characterization below is wrong and doesnt demonstrate a contradiction. "June 2009: global warming was blamed on the sun July 2009: it turned out global warming was caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation September 2009: back to the sun December 2009: no wait, it turns out CFCs are the major culprit January 2010: hello, we're back to El Niño as the major driver of climate " And dont forget he does point out contrary positions by trenberth for example. All of this falls under the rubric of the science is less settled than certain people claim ( the settled science meme was so stupid for our side to start, bad idea) basically, if you want to be effective with people who don't already agree with you then you had better take some lessons in rhetoric.
110293. steven mosher at 14:01 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Barry: "barry at 09:33 AM on 12 September, 2010 Mosh, "Anthony ceaselessly throws a lot of contradictory stuff at the wall to see what sticks. In the minds of his readers, as he must surely understand, nearly everything does stick, no matter that it contradicts what they hailed yesterday. In this case, he is the purveyor of contradictions, rather than the muddled idjit that holds them to be true (probably), but that hardly lets him off the hook, and I think the practise even more turgid than simply swallowing the dichotomies." Well wrong. Most people do not understand how content gets staged for WUWT, how it gets approved and what the editorial criteria are. If Gavin wants to post there, he can. Same with Mann or Jones or you. The theme of the blog is What's up with That? in this case scientist A says X, scientist B says NOT X. what's up with that? well, a fun conversation is WHAT. Pieces are slected because they are new, unusual, puzzling, contradictory. What you want is for somebody else, some authority, to settle the controversy. Anthony is happy to let his readers try. blood sport. Since I see it from the inside, since I myself have scheduled articles for publication I can tell you how I picked them. I picked the articles that I thought would start good debates. That means stuff on the edge, stuff making claims not heard before, or revisions of old positions. Watts as Purveyor of contradictions? ok fine. But that was NOT the claim made in the piece. NOT the claims made. This blog writer claims that sceptics contradicted themselves ( and he Picked some of my favorite examples, there are more) BUT he failed to sustain that prove that case in the case of WUWT. Sloppy thinking, sloppy reading, sloppy citatation. F "It doesn't matter how carefully he tries to distance himself from the pieces he posts or promotes, or casts himself as someone who 'muses' on these things - his agenda is patently clear and it's what the regulars go there for. Whether or not he endorses any of the stuff he oversees is a pretty meaningless technicality." To the claim made in this piece "A major challenge in conversing with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics is that they constantly seem to move the goalposts and change their arguments. " My point is this. The citations of Watts posting articles published by science journals DOES NOT make a case for Watt's contradiction. It fails miserably to show Watts changing HIS argument. It is watts, showing other people arguing from different sides of the question. You can however make the case that you made. That Anthony tends to amplify contradictory science or tries to create confusion, or any other such case. but that was not the claim made here. The evidence cited doesnt support the claim ( the singer example is MUCH better). As such, I would have given it an F as an old lecturer in rhetoric. Nice thesis, bad evidence. You cant rescue it by changing the thesis. By trying to, you show yourself even less capable of forceful argument. Since I believe in AGW I like to insist that we NOT be stupid or wrong or careless or lazy when criticizing skeptics. and that we correct our own bad arguments whenever they pop up
110294. Marcus at 13:42 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        A few of points Eric. Firstly, as has been pointed out to you, there is no upward-or downward trend in neutron counts (neutron counts in 1965 were about as high as 2008) & certainly seem to have no correlation to delta T-as the neutron count is clearly cyclical in nature, yet delta T is linear. Secondly, I've yet to see a single paper which shows a clear downward trend in global cloud cover-over the last 3 to 5 decades-in order to blame it-& not CO2 emissions-on recent global warming. Thirdly, as was shown by the CERES satellite studies earlier this decade, the *net* effect of cloud cover is almost zero-as albedo effects from clouds are almost completely canceled out by their IR-trapping ability. Fourthly, if reduced cloud cover/reduced albedo were the *real* cause of accelerated warming, then one would expect to see little to no change in stratospheric temperatures (or, at best, a modest warming of the stratosphere). Yet instead we see a consistent decline in stratospheric temperatures-something which can only be adequately be explained by trapping of IR radiation by GHG's. So what we're left with is the simple fact that whilst there is a strong correlation between CO2 & delta T & an historically strong correlation between sunspot numbers per cycle & delta T, you instead choose to dispute these correlations by using some "out of left field" explanation that relies solely on a factor that has no upward or downward trend to speak of & which even its proponents admit has a *non-linear* effect on cloud cover (for the record, Lindzen & Choi have actually shown that increased global temperatures can also reduce cloud cover in certain regions of the planet-the so-called Iris Effect). So wheras sunspot numbers are in fact a *major* element of climate, you instead throw up a red herring with neutron counts-which from any standpoint seem to be having a very *miniscule* effect on global climate.
110295. John Hartz at 13:40 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        @ Graham Wayne and John Cook: Many contributors to this comment thread have questioned the statistical quality of the OHC computed by the NOAA/NODC for the 2005-2009 time period. I suggest that you distill all of the particulars expressed into a set of questions and formally transmit the set to NOAA/NODC for response. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
110296. Albatross at 13:10 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        Badger @176, I think Eli mean to say "DSCOVR"--Deep Space Climate Observatory. It was a space mission designed to measure the planet's energy budget, but was quietly cancelled in early 2006.
110297. actually thoughtful at 13:10 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Steven Mosher @47 Nice try but no dice. It is Watts' site. He has a point of view. He has made it very clear. YOU could tell me his point of view. He doesn't post these contradictory things and say "Well this contradicts what we looked at last month - more research needed."- He post them all as PROOF that AGW isn't happening, or doesn't matter or whatever. Perhaps you have spent so much time at sites specializing in sophistry that has become your method of debating? You have a very small pedantic point "Anthony Watts, did not say each of those things, in his own words." But he posted and agreed with those points - so what is the difference in reality?
110298. John Hartz at 12:47 PM on 12 September 2010
        Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger
        What is "DSCVR"?
110299. johnd at 12:35 PM on 12 September 2010
        Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
        KR at 12:14 PM, the BOM table is generated from measurements taken by means that conform to world standards, so there should not be any mystery there as to how it is compiled. Apart from not understanding how BOM compile standard data sets, you also are not comprehending what I have written. NOWHERE have I claimed that the Terrestrial minimum temperature is the soil temperature, in fact if you read carefully the distinction between air temperatures, soil temperatures and terrestrial temperatures is made quite clear,so please, instead of being appalled at perceived inadequacies of others, address your own. What you fail to grasp is that even though back radiation is not recorded as such, how it manifests itself is. Hence the request that you explain why the terrestrial temperatures fall lower than both the air temperatures, and the soil temperature if back radiation drives the terrestrial temperatures in the manner you have indicated given back radiation is considered most relevant when direct solar radiation is not present.
110300. Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 12 September 2010
        The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
        Marcus says "sunspot numbers that directly correlate to Total Solar Irradiance". See my previous post, it is a weather and sensitivity argument. TSI is a small incoming energy change like you say but really being used as a red herring for a larger number of solar effects which modulate WV and back radiation.

Prev  2198  2199  2200  2201  2202  2203  2204  2205  2206  2207  2208  2209  2210  2211  2212  2213  Next